The motion of censure against the European Commission of Ursula von der Leyen failed to secure the two-thirds majority needed to pass on Thursday (10 July) — as widely expected.
Only 175 MEPs voted in favour, 360 voted against and 18 abstained. Around 77 percent of lawmakers took part in the vote, which would have required 360 votes in favour to succeed.
While the motion ultimately failed, it revealed a weakened political leadership, casting doubt on the European People's Party (EPP) alliances.
And adding to the interinstitutional infighting, the European Parliament is also threatening to sue the European Commission over its use of emergency procedures to fund the new defence spending plan.
“It is undeniable that the commission and its president are losing support in recent months,” said Green MEP and co-president of the group, Bas Eickhout, arguing that their opposition on the motion “is not an endorsement of the direction of the commission”.
Beyond von der Leyen's own EPP, the Greens were the only group who did not support the motion at all.
The motion, tabled by the Romanian nationalist Gheorghe Piperea, received fewer opposing votes than the number of MEPs who supported the von der Leyen 2.0 commission at its approval vote in November 2024.
And notably, that 2024 vote itself already showed a drop in support from the July 2019 vote that first brought her into office.
And within the parliament’s so-called “democratic majority," a small number of MEPs from the liberal group Renew Europe, the Socialists & Democrats (S&D), and the Greens abstained.
While abstaining is not the same as opposing, it does signal distrust and unease with her presidential style, her political priorities — or both.
In a public statement explaining his abstention, Irish liberal Barry Andrews went one step further, specifically citing von der Leyen’s failure to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
“President von der Leyen has been utterly silent on the ongoing genocide in Gaza, which we all can see with our own eyes … [she] has not once, not once, criticised blatant Israeli war crimes, … [she] has refused to consider any move toward trade sanctions on Israel… [her] inaction has helped undermine the system of international law and humanitarian law, on which the European project is based,” he said.
But it has been von der Leyen’s EPP alliance with Giorgia Meloni’s European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group that was at the centre of the motion of censure.
During Monday’s debate, S&D leader Iratxe García argued that the motion was the direct consequence of the EPP’s “misguided strategy” in the European parliament, pointing to its growing alignment and voting cooperation with rightwing ECR party.
After the vote, Renew president Valérie Hayer also said: “We demand that she [von der Leyen] takes control of her political family to put an end to alliances with the far-right”.
Breaking with their political groups, independent Irish MEP Ciaran Mullooly (Renew) and socialist Slovenian Matjaž Nemec supported the motion.
Nemec told the Slovenian press that he supported the motion due to von der Leyen’s double standards on the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, her response to the Israeli attack on Iran, her rhetoric focused on war and armament rather than peace, and her undermining of the rule of law.
But Thursday's vote also revealed deeply divisions within the ECR group itself. Despite actually sponsoring the motion, out of its 79 MEPs, only 39 voted in favour, while three abstained, two voted against, and 35 did not vote at all.
The motion was supported by Meloni’s ECR, Viktor Orbán’s Patriots, and the AfD’s Sovereign Nations — the ones dubbred earlier this week as “extremists” and “Russian puppets” by von der Leyen.
But, as pointed out by Alberto Alemanno, professor of EU Law at HEC Paris, those groups are the ones helping von der Leyen’s mainstream centre-right party to dismantle the Green Deal, set up an anti-NGO narrative in the European Parliament and block an interinstitutional ethical committee.
In contrast with what surviving a censure of motion usually means, Alemanno argued that this vote does not strengthen her political leadership, but rather will likely trigger increased scrutiny from all political parties (and the public) over the next four years.
On Thursday, in what appeared to be a kind of ultimatum, Iraxte García said the next State of the Union speech, expected in September, must be a “turning point". "We will need clear signs of commitment," she said.
Motions of censure against the European Commission are not new, but they rarely succeed. But the 1999 motion against the Santer Commission serves as a warning, as the commission resigned shortly afterwards due to political fallout.
This year, we turn 25 and are looking for 2,500 new supporting members to take their stake in EU democracy. A functioning EU relies on a well-informed public – you.
Elena is EUobserver's editor-in-chief. She is from Spain and has studied journalism and new media in Spanish and Belgian universities. Previously she worked on European affairs at VoteWatch Europe and the Spanish news agency EFE.
Elena is EUobserver's editor-in-chief. She is from Spain and has studied journalism and new media in Spanish and Belgian universities. Previously she worked on European affairs at VoteWatch Europe and the Spanish news agency EFE.